The role of the German government in the EIT ICT Labs

(1)

THE ROLE OF THE GERMAN GOVERNMENT IN THE EITICTLABS

BACHELOR THESIS

17/06/2013

THE ROLE OF THE GERMAN GOVERNMENT IN THE EITICTLABS

Christin Seibel

Universiteit Twente Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität

Enschede, the Netherlands Münster, Germany

Faculty of Management and Governance Institut für Politikwissenschaft

BSc European Studies BA Public Administration

Dr. Liudvika Leisyte Prof. Dr. Oliver Treib

(2)

I. ABSTRACT

This thesis analyses the role of the German Government in the European initiative EIT ICT Labs which aims at promoting the commercialization of knowledge in the European Union. The main the research question is ‘What is the role of the German Government in the EIT ICT Labs?’ Based on a case study, empirical evidence is primarily gained from official documents published by German and European political authorities and interviews. The analysis of this data suggests that the role of the Federal Government is to support the implementation of Triple Helix innovation networks within the concept of multi-level governance. For that purpose, the German Government uses the policy instrument of information to mediate between the stakeholders of the Triple Helix network.

KURZFASSUNG

Diese Bachelorarbeit untersucht die Rolle der deutschen Bundesregierung in der europäischen Initiative EIT ICT Labs, welche sich zum Ziel setzt, die Innovationskraft der Europäischen Union zu stärken. Vor diesem Hintergrund ist die Leitfrage: ‘Welche Rolle spielt die Bundesregierung in den EIT ICT Labs?’ Mithilfe einer Fallstudie wer- den empirische Daten aus offiziellen Dokumenten deutscher und europäischer politi- scher Akteure und durch Interviews gewonnen. Die Analyse dieser Daten lässt vermu- ten, dass die Funktion der Bundesregierung vor allem darin besteht, Innovationsnetz- werke nach dem Triple-Helix-Modells innerhalb des Konzepts der Multilevel Gover- nance zu fördern. Dabei nutzt die Bundesregierung das Politikinstrument der Informati- on, um zwischen den Triple-Helix-Netzwerkpartnern zu vermitteln.

(3)

TABLE OF CONTENT

ABSTRACT ... i

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ... iii

LIST OF FIGURES ... iii

LIST OF TABLES ... iii

(1) THE IDEA OF THE EITICTLABS ...1

(2) THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ...6

(2.1) TRIPLE HELIX MODEL...6

(2.2) MULTI-LEVEL GOVERNANCE ...8

(2.3) POLICY INSTRUMENTS ...10

(3) METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK ...13

(3.1) OPERATIONALIZATION ...13

MULTI-LEVEL GOVERNANCE ...14

POLICY INSTRUMENTS USED IN THE EIT ...16

CONDITIONS FOR COMMUNICATION IN THE EITICTLABS ...17

(3.2) RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ...18

RESEARCH DESIGN ...19

CASE SELECTION ...19

DATA COLLECTION ...20

DATA ANALYSIS...22

(4) CASE STUDY ...24

(4.1) MULTI-LEVEL GOVERNANCE ...24

SUBSIDIARITY PRINCIPLE WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE SOFTWARE CAMPUS 24 (4.2) POLICY INSTRUMENTS USED TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE EIT ...27

MECHANISMS USED ON THE EIT LEVEL ...27

MECHANISMS USED ON THE KIC LEVEL ...28

(4.3) CONDITIONS FOR COMMUNICATION ...29

TYPES OF PLACES FOR COMMUNICATION IN THE SOFTWARE CAMPUS ...29

DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES OF ACTORS OF THE SOFTWARE CAMPUS ...31

(5) CASE STUDY FINDINGS ...34

(6) CONCLUSION ...39

(6.1) THE ROLE OF THE GERMAN GOVERNMENT IN THE EITICTLABS ...39

(6.2) THE STUDY’S CONTRIBUTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ...41

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...42

APPENDIX ... iv

FIGURES... iv

TABLES ... vi

ATTACHMENT I –INTERVIEW GUIDELINE: THE SOFTWARE CAMPUS MANAGEMENT ... ix

ATTACHMENT II –INTERVIEW GUIDELINE: THE SOFTWARE CAMPUS STUDENTS ... xi

(4)

I. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

BMBF Federal Ministry of Education and Research BMWi Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology EIT European Institute of Innovation and Technology EU European Union

HE Higher Education

ICT Information and Communication Technology KIC Knowledge and Information Community SIA Strategic Innovation Agenda

SME Small and Medium Enterprises

II. LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: EIT knowledge triangle ... iv

Figure 2: Triple Helix modes I-III ... iv

Figure 3: Research process ... v

Figure 4: The role of the German Government in the EIT ICT Labs ... v

III. LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Conceptual concepts, their operationalization and indicators ... 13

Table 2: Observation matrix referring to sub-questions I to III ... 20

Table 3: Policy instruments in higher education and innovation policy ... vi

Table 4: Primary data sources according the dimensions ... vi

Table 5: Composition of working group 6 of the National IT Summit ... viii

(5)

THE IDEA OF THE EITICTLABS

(1) THE IDEA OF THE EITICTLABS

‘The Union has today set itself a new strategic goal for the next decade: to become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world capa- ble of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohe- sion.’ (Lisbon European Council, 2000).

This is the ambitious goal, set by the European innovation agenda of 2000 – the Lisbon Strategy – and its revised version of 2005 – the Lisbon Strategy for Growth and Jobs. In order to achieve this goal, the European Union (EU) and its Member States were encouraged to perform actions which should lead to (Commission of the European Communities, 2005):

a rise in the EU’s attractiveness for investments and for labour force, an increased creation of qualified work and

the promotion of knowledge and innovation in their function as key enablers of economic growth.

These more specific goals – and in particular the latter – indicate that the EU’s performance in commercialization of knowledge is not only affected by actions in the sector of innovation. They rather imply strong mutual linkages and reciprocal interdependencies between the three policy sectors of innovation, research and industry (Soriano & Mulatero, 2010, p. 291). By recognizing these interdependencies, the EU especially calls for (Izsak & Griniece, 2012, p. 10):

strengthening the relationship between research and business as well as reinforcing the linkages between research, education and innovation.

Hence, multinational, small and medium enterprises (SME) as well as universities and research institutes need to co-operate in order to improve the commercialization of knowledge in the EU (European Commission, 2007). One concrete mechanism particularly committed to strengthening their linkages through systemic interactions is the knowledge triangle promoted by the European Institute of Information and Technology (EIT) (see Figure 1: EIT knowledge triangle). This approach of the knowledge triangle makes the EIT being ‘an innovation in the European context with respect to traditional ways of thinking about and organising research’ (Gornitzka, Olsen, & Stensaker, 2007, p. 198). This organisation of research means also specialising policy actions along the

(6)

most important fields of research. Therefore, the EIT operates through units called Knowledge and Information Communities (KICs) concerned with:

climate change through the ClimateKIC,

sustainable energy through the KIC InnoEnergy and

information and communication technology (ICT) through the EIT ICT Labs.

The selection of these three areas was primarily based on the identification of eco-innovations as well as ICT as ‘picking winner’ areas in the Lisbon Strategy for Growth and Jobs (Jones, 2008, p. 7). In particular the sector of ICT is here the relevant key driver for innovation and growth in Europe. In concrete terms, it is considered to be the backbone of the knowledge economy the EU targets to become (Commission of the European Communities, 2005). Thus, the EIT ICT Labs is of considerable relevance to the commercialization of knowledge and therefore, is put in the focus of this research.

Like the other KICs, the EIT ICT Labs offers EIT labelled HE programs at Mas- ter and PhD level at its partner universities in the different Member States (European Insitute of Innovation and Technology, 2012). The most important component of these EIT programs is the provision of entrepreneurial training to the students. Therefore, a strong network of partners of industry, research and HE is needed. The Member State with probably even the strongest network of this kind is Germany (EIT, n.d.). Here, the evolution of strong university-industry partnerships was especially supported by the German Government. In that context, the Federal Government launched the national innovation strategy High-Tech Strategy in 2006 and the renewed version – High-Tech Strategy 2020 – in 2010. Concretely, these strategies initiated by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) still aims at creating new jobs and improving the citi- zens’ living standards. The Ministry saw an urgent need for this innovation strategy due to the competencies of the Federal Government in the field of the so-called

‘Großforschung’ which describes research activities considered beneficial to the whole society (Federal Ministry of Education and Research, 2010). However, due to the federal structure of Germany, there are also important competencies in the innovation policy granted to the sixteen German federal states. These competencies concern especially research activities corresponding to the regional potential and local problems (Deutscher

(7)

However, also the BMBF engages in abstract terms in HE by generally strengthening the HE’s position in Germany and by accelerating the commercialization of new findings in research.

Referring back to the HE programs supported by the EIT, the ‘outstanding project’ of the EIT ICT Labs is the Software Campus (EIT ICT Labs, 2011). The Software Campus provides entrepreneurial training to Master and PhD students of informatics and related studies through close co-operation between industry, research and HE. Thus, it promotes the knowledge triangle encouraged by the EIT. This network of industry, research and HE is even complemented by the German Government which is committed to and engages in the operation of the Software Campus. Hence, the Software Campus reflects what Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff (2007) define as the model of Triple Helix which illustrates the linkages and mutual influences between industry, research and HE as well as the government in a dynamic, spiral model of innovation. Like the EU envis- ages, these linkages result in the construction and strengthening of the knowledge-based society. According to Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff (1998), this evolution of the knowledge-based society can still be accelerated through enhanced communication between the network partners. Hence, communication and exchange of information should be in the focus of actions affecting the Triple Helix network. Moreover, Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff (1997, p. 4) recommend extending nationally implemented networks to the international level in order to further stimulate the process of commercialization of knowledge. This Europeanization of the network is the tasks of the national governments since they build the core of the European innovation policy (Etzkowitz &

Leydesdorff, 1997, p. 4). Here, it is referred to the embedding of the national governments in a system of policy actors at different territorial levels. Thus, it is also the role of the national governments within the concept of multi-level governance in the EU that is of considerable importance for the commercialization of knowledge in the EU.

To conclude, this research addresses the role of the Federal German Government in the EIT ICT Labs by having a closer look on the EIT ICT Labs’ program Software Campus. In that way, this thesis aims at enlightening a field which has not often been object to studies until now. Even though Jofre & Dannemand Andersen (2009), Colom- bo, Pirelli & Piva (2008) and Didier (2010) for instance analyse the role of the Member States in the EIT, their governments’ role in the KICs has not been analysed. In order to provide general insights into the role of the national governments in the EIT KICs, this thesis investigates the research question:

(8)

What is the role of the German Government in the EIT ICT Labs?

In order to answer it thoroughly, three sub-questions (SQ) guide the research process. The first sub-question aims at situating the German policy in the multi-level governance in the EU:

SQ I How does Germany with the program Software Campus take into account the European innovation strategy represented by the EIT?

After outlining the relevance of multi-level governance in that context, the range of possible ways for the German Government to influence the EIT’s operation is illus- trated. Thus, the second sub-question is:

SQ II What policy instruments is the Federal Government using to con- tribute to the commercialization of knowledge in the EIT?

Finally, the research interest is narrowed down to the use of one type of policy instrument in the EIT ICT Labs. As Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff (2008) suggest, particularly the communication and exchange of information is important, so that this research aims at answering the following sub-question:

SQ III How is the information policy instrument used for commercializa- tion of knowledge in the case of the EIT ICT Labs?

In order to answer these sub-questions and the overall research question, the thesis presents the theoretical framework in chapter 2. The literature used to build the theoretical framework concerns the model of Triple Helix, the concept of multi-level governance and an overview on policy instruments. For the purpose of describing and illustrating the Triple Helix model, mainly literature of the pioneers in this field – Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff – from 1997 and 1998 is reviewed because this literature explains the underlying assumptions of the Triple Helix network. This basic literature is supplemented by journal articles concerning the implementation of the Triple Helix network in the EU. Since these networks in the EU integrate partners of different territorial levels – at least supranational and national –, the second concept presented is multi-level governance. Here, in particular journal articles of besides others Gornitzka, Dolinar, Papa- dopoulos and van Kasbergen & van Waarden are used to illustrate what multi-level governance means in the EU. The presentation of the theoretical framework is followed by the explanation of the methodological choices including the operationalization, re-

(9)

rized in chapter 5 in order to answer the sub-questions. Finally, the thesis draws a conclusion on the main research questions.

All in all, this thesis enlightens the role of the German Government as ‘catalyst, promoter and regulator’ (Kuhlmann, 2001, p. 960) of the European innovation policy in the EIT ICT Labs and the Triple Helix model. In order to ensure the commitment of industry, research and HE, the German Government intensively makes use of the information instrument in form of guiding the implementation process.

However, the results of this thesis cannot be generalized since the case study only exemplifies the role of the German government in the Software Campus as one program of the EIT ICT Labs.

(10)

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

(2) THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

This chapter presents the theoretical concepts underlying this study. It starts with a conceptualization of the Triple Helix model which explains the linkages between the actors involved in networks promoting the knowledge commercialization. The second section outlines the concept of multi-level governance in the EU. Finally, the chapter closes with a short presentation of policy instruments which can be used to design the innovation policy.

(2.1) TRIPLE HELIX MODEL

The EIT ICT Labs’ program Software Campus relies on the integration of industry, research, HE and the German Government into one network in order to provide high quality entrepreneurial education to students. This network of partners clearly illustrates what Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff (1997, p. 3) define as the Triple Helix model.

The Triple Helix concept depicts the relationship between the actors of industry, HE and research as well as the government who mutually influence their innovation performance through linkages and shared functions within their partnership. For instance, the primary interest of industry concerns the exploitation of knowledge. Howev- er, the industry nowadays seems to be more closely linked to the HE since recently, the task of knowledge provision has also been performed by industrial actors through their R&D departments. (Ahrweiler, 1997, p. 102) Another example illustrating this task par- tition concerns the provision of funds for research and education programs which is primarily ensured by the industry sector. However, it is also the government who allo- cates financial subsidies to research programs and projects. Thus, the model suggests that all actors share ‘multiple reciprocal linkages at different stages of capitalization of knowledge’ (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 1997, p. 1). Therefore, the Triple Helix represents a dynamic, spiral model of innovation where the partners’ interactions accelerate the knowledge-based society what can provoke different effects (Etzkowitz &

Leydesdorff, 1997, p. 1). Firstly, there might be an internal transformation of the network. Here, each of the helices engaged in the network experiences changes within its own structure. Secondly, there are – mostly reciprocal – influences which one helix has on another. Thirdly, interactions in the network may cause effects on the whole trilateral

(11)

as government. The fourth kind of effects describes the recursive effects within the in- stitutional spheres. (Etzkowitz H. , 1997, p. 142)

After this presentation of the Triple Helix concept, a stronger focus is put on its relevance in the context of HE programs for Master and PhD students such as the Soft- ware Campus. The creation of new and the strengthening of existing programs based on Triple Helix networks is supposed to be promoted by the government (Thune, 2010). Its commitment to these programs is mainly based on the interest that the participating students will become an important source of knowledge which can be turned into social capital. This potential is created by the students’ ability to flexibly move between the research and industry sector and so, to look at their innovation projects from different angles. (van Vught & Dill, 2010) In this diversity of perspectives, Leydesdorff and Etz- kowitz (1998) see the basis for an increased creativity and a facilitated access to knowledge-intensive areas of research what in the end, leads to a dynamic innovation process. In order to further accelerate this knowledge creation and commercialization, in their view national governments should also aim at establishing networks on an international level. In the context of the EU, the national governments are supposed to build the core for these activities and therefore, complement the European policy. (Etzkowitz

& Leydesdorff, 1997, p. 4)

In general, three models of Triple Helix are identified (see Figure 2: Triple Helix modes I-III). In a Triple Helix I network, industry as well as HE are steered by the public authority. Characteristic for this mode are clearly defined boundaries between industry, research/HE and the government represented by the maintenance of their traditional roles. Here, the government’s role is the provision of funding in order to support start- ups and the realization of expensive projects. The actors in the Triple Helix II network are distinguished regarding their clear boundaries, too. However, industry, research and government are independent spheres which are only linked one with the other. Lastly, Triple Helix III networks are defined by an extension of functions of the actors (Etzkowitz & Ranga, 2010, pp. 4-5). These extensions of function occur specifically in form of (Viale & Ghiglione, 1998, p. 3):

the creation of spin-offs by researchers at HE institutes,

the employment of researchers from the public sector in the private sector, the employment of self-employed and entrepreneurs in research institutes or HE transfer offices, and

(12)

the management of public research projects by academic and private researchers.

This mode of Triple Helix III describes well the network infrastructure which the EU Member States seek to realize (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000, p. 112). Here, the national governments play an important role regarding the implementation and maintenance of Triple Helix partnerships by ensuring the partners’ commitment to the network. Particularly, this is true in terms of communication and knowledge transfer.

Furthermore, the Triple Helix model emphasizes the importance of international linkages. In that regard, the concept of multi-level governance in the EU is of considerable relevance and therefore, lies in the focus of the following section.

(2.2) M^ULTI-LEVEL GOVERNANCE

As it has been outlined previously, the overall European innovation performance is determined on at least two levels, the national and the European, supplemented by local and regional levels. In the case of the EIT ICT Labs and the Software Campus, there are actors of the EU and the national level involved. Hence, their co-ordination and collaboration needs to be addressed in the following.

The current situation of innovation policies in Europe can best be described by Kuhlman’s concept of ‘shared responsibilities’ (Kuhlmann, 2001, p. 966). This concept is based on the multi-level governance concept which is characterized by decentralization, delegation and subsidiarity. By decentralization is meant that the main activities in this policy field are performed on a national respectively sub-national level so that the Member States and federal states for instance are the important actors in steering research activities. The second term delegation describes the transfer of certain competencies away from the national to the European level. (van Kersbergen & van Warden, 2004, p. 153) Thirdly, the concept of subsidiarity laid down in Article 5 (3) Treaty on European Union is the principle determining on which level – national or supranational – policy actions are taken. It defines that policies are always first to be pursued on a national level. Only in case that addressing a problem on the European level is more efficient than addressing it on the national level, the EU gets active in the policy process. In terms of innovation policy, this principle of shared competencies is for instance shown by the launching of European strategies like the Lisbon Agenda and of national

(13)

‘Governance’ within the concept of multi-level governance, needs to be clearly distinguished from ‘government’. ‘Government’ is concerned with the infrastructure including formal structures as well as the net of institutions which enable public authority to address the interests and needs of the society (Dolinar, 2010, p. 99). However, in the EU – and especially in the area of HE – there have been trends away from the government towards governance (Mayntz, 1998; van Kersbergen & van Warden, 2004). In general, ‘governance’ can be defined as ‘the continuous political process of setting ex- plicit goals for society and intervening in it in order to achieve these goals’

(Jachtenfuchs & Kohler-Koch, 2004, p. 99). This definition of governance is very broad in contrast to what Papadopoulos states by referring to a ‘sustaining co-ordination and coherence among a wide variety of actors with different purposes and objectives’

(Papadopoulos, 2008, p. 31). De Boer, Enders and Leisyte (2007) identify such governance in the field of the HE by the fact that the co-ordination of this system is steered by various actors of interdependent policy levels at the stages of the policy cycle from agenda setting to policy evaluation. Thus, the sector of HE particularly illustrates that governance depends on the action taking of several actors at several territorial and functional levels.

In general, the term ‘multi-level’ is referred to the fact that governance includes

‘a large number of decision-making arenas differentiated along functional and territorial lines and interlinked in non-hierarchical way’ (Papadopoulos, 2008). In the EU these levels are local, regional, national and supranational. Thus, the EU’s policy setting, making and implementation within the concept of multi-level governance consists of ‘a system of continuous negotiation among nested governments at several territorial tiers’

(Marks, 1993, p. 392). Consequently, the existence of a specific number of levels in- duces a certain degree of (de-)centralization (Conzelmann, 2008). Decentralization oc- curs because of policy-making pursued on the subnational level. Thus, actors like federal states, communities, or local authorities are involved in decision-making besides the national institutions. Moreover, the national government is not anymore considered to be the highest level of policy making since there is a delegation of powers to the supranational solving a European wide problem seems to be more appropriate and efficient when it is done at the EU level. The European policies are therefore more seen as ‘political initiatives to tackle with the coordination of European and national policies’

(Magalhaes, Veiga, Ribero, Sousa, & Santiago, 2012).

(14)

In addition, co-ordination is needed among actors of different horizontal levels – meaning actors of different sectors. Hence, this involvement of actors of different horizontal levels leads to changes in the policy areas linked to innovation. Gornitzka (2010) for instance shows that the trends of governance in the HE were reinforced by new de- velopments in fields such as innovation and research. This view is supported by van Kersbergen and Verbeek (2004, p. 149) who outline the five sources of change in the diverse policy arenas of the EU:

a changing political concept, a rise in the number of actors,

the action-taking by the European Commission, the ruling of the European Court of Justice, and the intervention of Member States.

The Member States’ governments build a core element in the EU since the implementation of multi-level governance depends on their action taking (Dolinar, 2010, p. 99). In order to be able to coordinate the activities of national governments and the EU, a pool of instruments is available to the policy actors. The selection of concrete means depends on certain conditions such as (Rosenbaum, 2010, p. 287):

the features of the policy system,

the needs of the group the policy is addressed to, and the actor intending to use the policy instrument.

In the EU, the actors using policy instruments are supposed to be interdependent.

According to Hanf and O’Toole (2003, p. 5), it results in disturbances which mostly occur on the EU level and affect especially the working of nationally implemented networks.

This leads to the question which policy instruments can be used in the EU. For this purpose, the following section deals with the diversity of policy tools which are available to policy actors in the multi-level governance.

(2.3) POLICY INSTRUMENTS

Vedung (1998, p. 21) defines policy instruments as ‘the set of techniques by which government authorities wield their power in attempting to ensure support and

(15)

Labs and the Software Campus. The categorization of these instruments depends on the author. However, there are three dominant dimensions (see also Table 3: Policy instruments in higher education and innovation policy):

legislation, funding information.

Legislative tools are commonly defined as rules steering and regulating interactions between actors in different arenas such as society and market. In order to construct framework conditions for the social and economic life in its territory, the government uses regulations, laws and directives. The legislative instruments might also include self-regulation, standard setting, delegated regulation as well as advisory services and the implementation of committees. To sum it up, the acts provide the legal basis for governmental action which is aimed at achieving previously defined goals. (Borrás, 2013; Bähr, 2010; Hood, 1984)

Another category of policy instruments concerns financial tools focussing and affecting the market. These are allocation of financial resources or as (dis-)incentives.

The incentives and disincentives are meant to indirectly steer the market for instance through changes in the taxation system. According to Bähr (2010), the financial tools are charges, taxes and subsidies. Moreover, Hood (1984) adds grants, loans and user charges to this category of policy instruments. (Bähr, 2010; Borrás, 2013; Hood, 1984)

The last dimension of policy instruments refers to the collection of information and its voluntary exchange. According to Bähr (2010, p. 18), the major aim when using these instruments is to convince the recipients of particular information. In that way, those members of society are reached who are not addressed and influenced by other binding means. Reaching these members is further facilitated by their formal or informal relationships to the political actors, either through contracts, common institutions or through public and private partnerships. Here, the linked partners provide and exchange information in diverse ways ranging from benchmarking and peer pressure, recommen- dations, campaigns, codes of conduct to advertising, institutions, and advice. (Borrás, 2013; Bähr, 2010; Howlett, 2000; Lascoumes & Les Gales, 2007; Hood, 1984;

Kuhlmann, 2001)

The basis for the information instrument is raw data or original databases. In that regard, the actors engaged in the communication process are characterized as data pro-

(16)

viders, data brokers, and data users. The information providers are actors with strong ambition to publish data but who want to maintain control over the data. In contrast, data users aim at obtaining as much information as possible for a price which is as low as possible. Lastly, the data broker functions as an intermediary between provider and user and has to ensure the well-functioning of exchange by reducing barriers such as caution. (Walker & Taylor, 1999, p. 4)

According to what the literature suggests, it could be expected, that the German Government primarily performs the role of the data broker mediating between actors of different levels. Referring to the first sub-question this means that the Federal Govern- ment embedded in the concept of multi-level governance of the EU translates the Euro- pean innovation strategy into the national strategy. By doing so, the government is supposed to contribute to the European performance in terms of commercialization of knowledge. This expectation leads to preliminary assumptions on the second sub- question referring to the ways in which the Federal Government can contribute to the commercialization of knowledge in the EIT. Here, it is assumed that the German Gov- ernment uses different policy instruments out of the pool of diverse instruments to ensure the well-working of the EIT and the commitment of the EIT network partners to their engagement in the European institute. So, the working of the EIT is affected by the Federal Government’s use of legislative, financial and the information. Finally, it is expected that the information instrument is intensively used by the Federal Government to implement and maintain the Triple Helix network. In that regard, it is assumed that the Federal Government mediates between the partners of the networks what leads to an accelerated commercialization of knowledge. Characteristic for the information instruments used within the Software Campus to accelerate the knowledge commercialization is the diversity of meetings where different perspectives of the network partners are turned into the beneficial consideration of one research issue from different angles.

In order to empirically find out what the role of the German Government in the EIT ICT Labs is, a qualitative research based on a case study is pursued. The methodological considerations determining the data collection and analysis are addressed in the upcoming chapter.

(17)

METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK

(3) METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK

In the upcoming methodology chapter the operationalization of the main varia- bles is outlined, followed by the description of the research design, case selection as well as data collection and analysis. The presented methodological choices describe the way in which the answer to the main research question of the study, that is, identifying the national government’s role in a European initiative, is gained (see Figure 3: Re- search process).

(3.1) OPERATIONALIZATION

In order to be able to answer the research question of this thesis, the main varia- bles of the study need to be identified based on the theoretical framework of Triple He- lix, multi-level governance and policy instruments presented in chapter 3. The operationalization of the concepts is presented in the following table:

Table 1: Conceptual concepts, their operationalization and indicators

concepts Operationalization Indicator

Multi-level govern- ance

subsidiarity principle within the Software Campus

address problems arising European wide

identification of the same challenges to be tackled in the agenda of the Software Cam- pus and the EIT

reaching the critical mass of human resources across all EU Member States

number of students in the Software Campus

number of non-German students in the Software Cam- pus

implementation of community policy

convergence of goals and concepts of the EIT and the Soft- ware Campus strategy

Policy in- struments used in the EIT

mechanisms on the EIT level

Member States’ contribution to the EIT

Informal Meeting of Minis- ters for Competitiveness organized by the German Gov- ernment

laws adopted by and subsidies provided by

the national governments to influence the EIT

(18)

mechanisms on the KIC level

Member States’ contribution to the KICs

financial subsidies for the KICs provided by,

financial subsidies for the program Software Campus provided by and

the best practice policy instrument used by

the national governments Conditions

for com- munication

types of places for communication in the Software Campus

places for the exchange of policy information

the National IT Summit as a meeting of industry, research/HE and government for organizational and administra- tive matters of the Software Campus

places for the exchange of knowledge

mentoring and leadership trainings

as meetings of industry and research within the Software Campus for thematic exchange different per-

spectives of actors of the Software Campus

motivation of the actors to engage in the Software Campus

relevance of

the students’ education provided by the Software Cam- pus,

the network of industry, research, HE and government for industry, students, universities and research institutes as well as the BMBF engaged in the Software Campus

goals envisaged by the actors of the Software Campus

aim to

recruit skilled labour force or/and

extend existing networks stated by industry, the students of the Software Campus and the BMBF

MULTI-LEVEL GOVERNANCE

As it is outlined in chapter 3 on the theoretical framework, the EU innovation policy is embedded in the concept of multi-level governance. According to Kuhlmann (2001, p. 966), the EU is a policy arena of ‘shared responsibilities’ where the principle of subsidiarity is of considerable relevance (Magalhaes et al., 2012, p. 98).

(19)

SUBSIDIARITY PRINCIPLE WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE SOFTWARE CAMPUS

Subsidiarity, as laid down in Article 5 (3) in the Treaty on European Union, is considered a normative concept which is aimed at organizing the share of competencies among actors of different levels (Bermann, 1994; Pelkmans, 2006; Schütze, 2009). It is based on three criteria (Kuhlmann, 2001, p. 963):

(a) Address problems arising European wide

First, Kuhlmann (2001, p. 963) states that subsidiarity means to address challenges occurring European wide. Thus, it is looked at which challenges shall be tackled by the program Software Campus. Then, it needs to be outlined how far these problems occur on the European level. The logic behind this is that a coherence of the national and EU innovation strategies can only be achieved when the same societal and economic difficulties are identified and addressed by policy actions on both levels. Addressing a European wide problem is indicated by analysing whether the Software Campus and the EIT both identify the lack of skilled labour force responsible for taking go- or kill- decisions on new ideas.

(b) Reaching the critical mass of human resources across all EU Member States

Second, it is stated that projects based on the subsidiarity principle should in- crease the amount of personnel resources within the territory of the EU (Kuhlmann, 2001, p. 963). Whether a critical mass is efficiently reached in order to have an impact on the innovation performance on the EU level strongly depends on serving either international or local markets (Marimon & Carvalho, 2008, p. 4). This leads to the need to study in more detail the target group of the Software Campus. Therefore, it is first looked at the total number of students admitted to the program. Second, the origin of these students is focussed indicating the share of non-German students. The higher the share of these non-German students, the more probable it is to provoke impacts on the European level with the Software Campus program.

(c) Implementation of EU policy

Alternatively, subsidiary projects should facilitate the realization of policy decisions taken on the EU level since the multi-level governance depends on the action taking of national governments (Dolinar, 2010, p. 99). So, it is outlined whether the Soft- ware Campus strategy mirrors the EIT agenda. This is indicated by comparing goals,

(20)

primary concepts, concretely the knowledge triangle, and the role of the industry as it is defined in both strategies. If the Software Campus program identifies the same goals and concepts like the EIT agenda, it is assumed that Germany implements the EU innovation policy.

POLICY INSTRUMENTS USED IN THE EIT

As Hanf and O’Toole (2003, p. 3) suggest, the selection of policy instrument depends on the actor and on which level – national or European – the policy making takes place. Since the EIT integrates the KICs as sub dimensions, a distinction between instruments available within the EIT and within the KICs is needed.

MECHANISMS USED ON THE EIT LEVEL

(a) Member States’ contribution to the EIT

On the level of the EIT, the Member States might make use of diverse policy instruments. The analysis of a selection of these mechanisms starts with the information instrument. As Bähr (2010, p. 18) defines these instruments, the German Government uses them to convince other Member States of its ideas. The author’s definition suggests that the Federal Government can influence the future innovation performance of the EIT especially during the implementation of the EIT. Therefore, the Informal Meeting of Ministers of Competitiveness exemplarily indicates the use of the information instrument by the German Government. The use of legislative instruments in indicated by laws the German Government might adopt to contribute to the EIT. Lastly, financial instruments include financial subsidies allocated by the Federal Government in order to financially support the operation of the EIT.

MECHANISMS USED ON THE KIC LEVEL

(a) Member States’ contribution to the KICs

The KICs are the executing bodies of the EIT, responsible for the implementation and operation of single projects, which target the promotion of knowledge commercialization (Colombo et al., 2008, p. 3). In order to facilitate this operation of projects, they maintain Co-location Centres in different Member States, so that the Member States’ governments contribute to the KICs by using policy instruments. The policy

(21)

German Government. The first subsidies include the contribution of the national governments for the operation of the KICs. The latter include the allocation of financial resources to the program Software Campus. In addition, it is analysed if and how the best practice policy instrument is used. In contrast, legislative policy tools are not exam- ined in this section since the importance of legislative tools used by the German Gov- ernment seem less important to due to the independence of the EIT and KICs from national legislation.

CONDITIONS FOR COMMUNICATION IN THE EITICTLABS

According to Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff (1998), the communication processes between industry, research, HE and the government are of considerable importance since they provide the basis for knowledge exchange and accelerate the knowledge commercialization. In the following this communication process is operationalized in order to outline how communication takes place within the Software Campus.

TYPES OF PLACES FOR COMMUNICATION IN THE SOFTWARE CAMPUS

(a) Places for exchange of policy information

Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff (1997, p. 160) state that the government’s role in the Triple Helix model is to use mutual learning within the network in order to promote the exchange of ideas on how to improve the knowledge capitalization. Therefore, opportunities for such a mutual exchange and/or best practises have to be available. These opportunities are supposed to be provided by meetings of the BMBF and the partners of industry, research and HE of the Software Campus. During these regular and irregular meetings, the implementation and operation of the Software Campus shall be discussed and brought forward. The important meeting focussed here is the National IT Summit organized by the German Government. So, the National IT Summit is used to indicate the places for exchange of policy information between all actors of the Triple Helix network.

(b) Places for the exchange of knowledge

Furthermore, opportunities for knowledge exchange between industry, research, HE and the government are of considerable relevance. These opportunities for transfer of knowledge mirror one of the reciprocal linkages between industry, research, HE and the government which are relevant for the commercialization of knowledge (Etzkowitz

& Leydesdorff, 1997, p. 159). These possibilities can be provided at meetings or

(22)

through institutions of the industry and representatives of research – respectively the students enrolled in the Software Campus. These meetings are supposed to be used for the exchange of knowledge gained through research and the teaching of skills to the students by the industry. These places are indicated by the mentoring and leadership trainings provided to the students by the industry partners of the Software Campus.

DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES OF ACTORS OF THE SOFTWARE CAMPUS

The exchange of views from various sectors is meaningful to the innovation process. According to Leydesdorff and Etzkowitz (1998), differences in the perspectives on innovation projects affect the efficiency of their communication due to a more dynamic exchange of information between industry, government and research. In the context of this research these different perspectives are operationalized as motivation and goals for the involvement in the Software Campus.

(a) Motivation of actors to engage in the Software Campus

First, the different perspectives of the actors involved in the Software Campus refer to different motivations to get engaged in this program. In that regard, it is focussed on the reasons for the students, industrial partners, the research, HE institutes and the government to participate in the Software Campus. The motivation can either be provided by the education offered to participating students through the HE and research institutes, by the established relationship between industry and research or finally, by financial advantages for the partners of the Software Campus like the share of investments in research activities.

(b) Goals envisaged by the actors of the Software Campus

Second, it is outlined what the network partners of the Software Campus expect of their engagement in the program Software Campus. Hence, a closer look is taken at the expectations of industry, the students in their function of researchers and the BMBF.

These goals include the quality of education of the Software Campus students as well as the extension and strengthening of the network.

(3.2) RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Based on the operationalization just presented, data is collected and analysed by

(23)

sources. Before presenting the collection and analysis of these data, the choice of the research design and an argumentation on the case selection is presented.

RESEARCH DESIGN

The objective of this research is to outline the role of the German Government in the EIT ICT Labs. An answer on this research question is gained by the help of the research design of a case study which Yin defines as ‘an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon in depth and within its real-life context’ (Yin, 2009, p. 18). Moreover, this research is an exploratory study based on qualitative methods such as qualitative interviews and document studies. For the analysis, the single unit studied is the Software Campus as a program of the EIT ICT Labs. Upfront, the case selection criteria were developed to ensure that the case well represents the EIT ICT Labs and to guarantee access to the required data (Yin, 2009, p. 47). The reasons for the selection of the Software Campus are further outlined in the following paragraph on the case selection.

CASE SELECTION

As Yin (2009, pp. 19-20) states, the case has to be selected according to the research question and shall help to explain, describe, illustrate, and enlighten the role of the Federal Government in the EIT ICT Labs. Thus, the selection of an appropriate case is based on the theoretical framework which is presented in chapter 2. The Software Campus is a program integrated in the EIT ICT Labs and is selected as a case for a cou- ple of reasons. Firstly, the Software Campus brings together nine business partners, five universities, three research institutes and the Federal Government represented by the BMBF. Together, the actors support Master and PhD students of computer science or related studies in their research activities as well as to provide them with entrepreneurial skills. Hence, the Software Campus as an ‘outstanding project’ (EIT ICT Labs, 2011) of the EIT ICT Labs node in Berlin (EIT ICT Labs Germany) applies the knowledge triangle promoted by the EIT. This concept is further extended by integrating the German Government in the network of the Software Campus. Thus, the Software Campus ap- propriately represents the model of Triple Helix by bringing together industry, research and HE as well as government. Moreover, the involvement of the German Government in a program embedded in an EU innovation initiative will give evidence on the multi- level governance concept within the EIT ICT Labs.

(24)

DATA COLLECTION

This research is based on data of primary sources (see Table 4: Primary data sources according the dimensions) and secondary sources. In order to be able to cross- check and triangulate this data, multiple – according to Yin (2009, p. 114), multiple means at least two – data sources are used. These are qualitative interviews, press releases, speeches, audio-visual data and documentation. The following Table 2: Observa- tion matrix referring to sub-questions I to III presents which data sources are used to answer the three research questions. The columns indicate which research question shall be answered whereas the rows refer to the aforementioned operationalization. For the purpose of keeping the table as simple as possible, the fields are subdivided enabling to represent by ‘x’ which kind of source is used for which research question referring to a certain operationalized dimension. The documentations as presented in a detailed man- ner in Table 4: Primary data sources according the dimensions are summarized to four major categories.

Table 2: Observation matrix referring to sub-questions I to III legend:

Documentation: EU regulation

EIT documents

documents published by the BMWi

reports on the National IT Summit, other Other sources than

documentation:

interviews (I_a-I_d)

press releases (P_a-P_g)

speeches (S_a-S_c)

videos (V_a-V_h)

SQ I SQ II SQ III

Multi-level governance

the subsidiarity principle

address problems arising European wide

x x x

x x x critical mass

of human resources across all

x x x x x implementa-

tion of EU policy

x x x x x x

In- ts the mecha-

nisms Member x x x x x x